Dieter Schaefer

@JDM - like Fred, I am lost and need a translation. Don't want to hire a lawyer to help me understand what you wrote - am afraid it might take several and I be stuck with a few contradicting opinions.

A camera is as much "just a tool" as a car is "just a means" to get people and stuff from A to B. Just like for some not any car will do, not any camera will do either. In either case, I pick the one that helps me enjoy the task rather than "just" be done with it. A camera is a tool alright - but just like with any tools there are good ones and bad ones; the ones that help and the ones that just get in the way.

<p>85mm was the longest focal length I took to Italy - and even that lens did not see much use. I am considering trading my f/2.8 70-200 for the f/4 version - simply because for many situations, the f/2.8 is too large and too heavy. Or I may forgo a zoom all together and use the 150/2.8 instead (maybe with a 1.4x in the bag "just in case"). </p> <p>Please keep in mind that many places in Italy will not allow you to setup a tripod and many will not let you take a camera bag inside. If you plan on taking more than the camera with lens attached into those buildings and museums, consider alternative means of carrying your gear (like a photo vest). </p>

<p>Bill - could you enlighten me as to what is humorous about posting that image in the nature forum and asking to identify the creature? Obviously someone with a rather questionable taste in attire selection. Though at least the tie choice has merit - I always feel like I have a hangman's noose around my neck when I wear one. But why the "two thumbs up"?</p>

<blockquote> <p>More than 30,000 people in 15 countries were asked to rank the nations with the worst sense of humour and Germany came out on top. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8560815/Germany-officially-the-worlds-least-funny-country.html</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm German and am thus in a group that is accused of having no sense of humor whatsoever - but maintain that German humor is misunderstood anywhere outside of Germany - it is simply "lost in translation". By contrast, American or British humor is often just lost on me. And I am lost on how to weave photographers into this at all!</p>

<p>Eric, you forgot the three 55-xxx lenses and the 40mm macro! Canon has even less! But the advantage that all their primes work on all their crop sensor cameras without restriction - whereas most Nikon primes don't AF on the lower-end bodies. In more than a decade Nikon has not managed to update many of their FX primes to AF-S - so how can we possibly expect them to focus on DX primes?</p> <blockquote> <p>90/2 (135 equiv.)</p> </blockquote> <p>The FX 85/1.8 isn't all that big - and I doubt that it would shrink substantially if it was designed for the smaller image circle of DX. And dare I say that there is now a 58/1.4 lens that's "perfect" for portraits on DX - with the only caveat that it costs more than any of the DX camera bodies currently available. But I am sure there are many takers - maybe even a few more than those who purchased the FX 24/1.4 so that they can have the 35-mm equivalent FOV on DX.</p> <p>As soon as Nikon had an FX sensor, high-end DX was doomed (how's that for hindsight being 20/20?). Nikon concentrated on lower priced FX primes and zooms so that they had something to offer to those who were now forced into upgrading to FX. Too bad that the D600 backfired so badly and that the D800 wasn't the D700 replacement many had hoped for.</p> <p>I was really surprised by the 18-35/1.8 - not only that it is even possible but by the quality of the optics. Of course, the lens is large and heavy (but so is the Otus 55/1.4 compared to other 50mm lenses). Now I am wondering why there isn't a 24-85/2.8 for FX - or a 16-70/2.8 for DX. I bet there won't even be a 16-85/4! Fairly certain Nikon will see the need to bring out another 18-xx(x) though. And another 55-xxx...</p>

<blockquote> <p>are we now saying that DX was only ever a temporary stop gap before full-frame sensors became affordable</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes that seems to be quite clear now. The woefully inadequate DX lens system (or should I say lopsided towards consumer-grade zoom solutions) is proof enough (not only Nikon but Canon too).</p> <blockquote> <p>Anyone actually know how much more a FX sensor costs to make compared to a DX sensor?</p> </blockquote> <p>Don't know - but am guessing (or have read it somewhere) that it's about 10x. Less FX sensor per wafer and higher percentage of unusable sensor per wafer as the main reasons for the difference? In addition to lower production numbers of FX vs DX cameras?</p> <blockquote> <p>DX is in no way more pocketable than FX</p> </blockquote> <p>Part of the blame is that Nikon was stuck with the F-mount (or more precisely the flange-to-sensor distance) - otherwise the camera could be a made a bit smaller. Canon at least made their crop sensor mirrors smaller to allow EF-S lenses to protrude farther into the mirror chamber but had to make their EF-S lenses incompatible with their full frame bodies as a result. Not that using DX lenses on an FX camera is something all that desirable.</p>

<p>Yes!<br /> On second thought: No!<br /> Then again: maybe!<br /> Finally: won't see either!<br> <br /> Canon's 7D upgrade is almost as overdue as Nikon's D300/D300S upgrade - and in both cases, the lower-end cameras have move upward to almost fill the gap. Seems quite likely that neither camera will have a true successor. The D7100 is better than the D300 in nearly every aspect (that stupid small memory being the exception) and the same could be said for the 70D. Smaller and lighter seem to be more important than external controls and fast frame rate.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes.<br> No.</p>

<p>Robert, you don't mention what camera(s) you are using. DSLRs as well as AF-era SLRs can give one a hard time manual focusing since the screen doesn't display changes in DOF once the maximum aperture of the lens is faster than approximately f/2.8 and hence focus accuracy is compromised - independent of the focus throw of the lens being used. In other words, while an f/1.4 lens will give you a brighter viewfinder than an f/2.8 one, the shallower DOF of the faster lens is not viewable on the screen. Exchanging the screen for one optimized for manual focusing will help getting back some of the accuracy lost with AF viewing screens. Many AF cameras have a "focus confirmation" indicator that may or may not be helpful. I have had cameras where it is rather inconsistent and other were it is a very reliable indicator.</p> <p>In general, in the Nikon world, it appears that Ai lenses have a somewhat longer focus throw than Ai-S ones and for manual focusing, I usually prefer the former.</p> <p>As to excessively long throw - the one lens I had a hard time with was the Leica Macro-Elmarit 100/2.8 - almost two full turns between MFD and infinity. Smooth but stiff - and tedious if one had to move between close-up and far away often. Naturally, very accurate when focusing carefully - but small changes were hard to see on the focusing screen.</p>

<p>Agree with Wouter - there is such a thing as too long. It also depends on what you focus with - optical viewfinder or live view/EVF. A lens with a long focus throw may not produce much variance on a SLR focus screen when small changes are made - with the result that the focus may end up not exactly where you want it to be. No such issue with live view/EVF - but one may have to zoom in to see those small differences.</p>

<blockquote> <p>good chance you'll not fuss to send it in</p> </blockquote> <p>Not an issue with instant rebates.<br> Point of rebates: push sales up to meet some financial goal (for example, the next quarterly statement). Or clear "old" inventory. Certainly a slick marketing scheme - give the customer the feeling to get a "deal" and to push him to make the purchase. Works well even on me - I would not have traded the Nikon 85/1.8D for the 1.8G without the $100 rebate. Certainly liked the $400 rebate for the 80-400 AF-S. And would not own the Sony A7 without the $400 off I received in a special promotion. <br> The backside for the company is - knowing there might be one, I might hold of on a purchase until rebate time!</p>

<blockquote> <p>82mm protection filter for the lens - which one to buy, does it decrease quality and do I need a filter like that at all, or its enough with the build-in lens hood for front lens protection?</p> </blockquote> <p>I owned the lens and I did have a filter on it. I photograph a lot on beaches or near the ocean and found cleaning the filter a lot easier than cleaning the front element. Can't recall the filter brand, it likely was a Hoya though.</p> <blockquote> <p>Tripod and head for birding for the d7000 + the lens - around 2,3 kg - which tripod to get?</p> </blockquote> <p>I would consider the 190 marginal for your application; I owned a set of 055 legs and they are certainly up to the task but I traded them for an Induro CT 414, replacing the standard column with a short one (Induro just came out with a series of tripods without center column - if I were to purchase today, that's what I would be getting). In addition to being lighter than aluminum tripods (though depending on size, not by all that much), carbon tripods are more comfortable to work with when its cold or wet out. The Induro 4xx tripod is definitely overkill, I would recommend you have a good look at their 3xx. </p> <blockquote> <p>opinions about ... heads</p> </blockquote> <p>I started with a ball head and found them not suitable for bird photography - and I traded up for a gimbal head: Jobu Jr.3 Gimbal Kit with Swing-Arm HM-J2 from Jobu Design. It is sufficient for smaller lenses but I wish I had opted for an Induro GHB2 instead (I had issues with balancing a 300/4AF-S with TC-17EII attached). I have not used one - but the Acratech Long Lens head looks interesting too (or you could get their panoramic head - which is essentially the same thing).</p> <p>The cheapest tripod/head solution will likely set you back some $500-$600 - and it is very easy to push that way past the $1K.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Never used DVD as a backup medium since I consider them not safe (aside from being slow and cumbersome). Always used hard drives as backup - the key is to have multiple backups and in case a drive fails, to get a new one and put on it what was lost on the failed one. </p>

<p>Walking around town, I was treated to this:</p><div></div>

<p>The D7100 is actually the "higher resolution" camera - smaller pixel pitch means higher Nyquist frequency and hence ability to resolve fine detail.</p> <p>I often wonder if for landscape photography the often cited FX advantages are really field relevant and lead to a clear distinction of images taken, for example, with a D7100 and Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 8-16 (which I consider the best DX UWA zooms currently around) and a D800E/D810 and the 14-24 (which is generally accepted as the golden standard for FX UWA zooms)? And is that difference - if it even exists or is important for ones work, worth the 2.5x price differential?</p> <p>I acquired an FX camera particularly for use with the 16-35/4 - where VR allows me to take images that I otherwise could not (because I either didn't bring a tripod or am not allowed to set one up) - there is no equivalent lens for DX. It also essentially eliminated one lens from my bag - instead of 11-16 and 16-35 or 17-55 for DX, the 16-35 does all I need on FX. </p> <p> </p>

Maybe Nikon will come to their senses and the successor will improve on every aspect of the D300? Instead of the two iterations we already had that give with one hand and take away with the other? Couldn't care less who makes the sensor - it's irrelevant. Expect a minor upgrade similar to D800 -> D810 - and hopefully more memory.

<p>Bought and sold a lot of stuff on ebay - but more and more shy away from selling on ebay and have gotten very careful who I purchase from. I always offered a return option within a reasonable time frame (1-3 days) - but now ebay forces me to allow at least 14 days for a return. Definitely too long - especially with the current buyer friendly policies - I am not a rental place and nothing would prevent a person to get my lens or camera, have a nice vacation with it and then return it "not as described" because of the scratches that were added while in their possession - all for the price of the return shipping. I end up with a item that is now worth less (if not defective) and have to go through all the hassle of selling it again. As already mentioned, most ebay users are honest - but the number of those who aren't isn't zero. Of course, buyers are getting used to having generous return periods - the big stores usually offer 30-days of "no questions asked" returns. As an ebay seller, I can not afford to be that generous.</p> <p>In addition, it appears to be almost mandatory nowadays to offer "free shipping" - and with ebay and paypal fees that amounts to some 12-15% of the purchase price (and considerably more if shipping internationally). I recently tried to sell a 6-month old lens and realized (a) I can't compete with the professional stores that offer free shipping and (b) expect a reasonable amount for a barely used lens. In fact, I could have mailed it to adorama or keh and would have gotten what was offered to me on ebay without any hassle at all. And that is what selling on ebay now amounts to - a lot of potential and real hassle.</p> <p>To me the "no return" isn't a big turn-off - but the "local pickup only" would be. There is just no way I would meet some stranger any place with either merchandise or a wad of cash in my pocket. And unless I do the transaction inside a bank, I would not accept a $100 bill from a stranger. Another issue of course is that buying from a new seller with no feedback carries more risk - and from that sellers perspective will likely result in a sale at much less than the desired amount.</p> <p>I wanted to emphasize what has been brought up already - the only acceptable form of payment is through paypal - do not accept any other form of payment (like money order or personal check). Stay within the ebay/paypal system - don't accept payment outside of it - you lose most of your protection if you do. I am not aware of ebay or paypal offering any escrow service - and I would never agree to use a third party one - the risk of losing both the money and the merchandise is too great. Note that in case a buyer files a dispute, your paypal funds will be frozen until the dispute is resolved. That's why a lot of sellers transfer money out of paypal before shipping merchandise.</p> <p>@Harry: my worst experience was not receiving any merchandise at all and then learning that a money order isn't a safe and traceable form of payment (as I had assumed). In addition, at that time ebay was not helpful at all and buyer protection was nowhere near where it is today. I also had someone leave me negative feedback - as it turned out, he mistook me for someone else and despite both of us contacting ebay, ebay refused to cancel or erase the feedback. My experience with paypal have been positive though - a case of not-delivered merchandise was reported to both paypal and the credit card company (always use a credit card when making paypal payments, never e-check or direct transfer) and resolved within a couple of weeks.</p>

<p>Naturally, the way out of the dilemma is to purchase a second body and a bigger bag ;-)</p> <p>Usually, I have the lens I expect to use most mounted on the camera. I have one bag configuration though where I can only fit the camera without a lens - on location I then pick the lens I need. Most of my bags are backpacks which don't offer fast and easy access - so it doesn't matter much whether or not a lens is actually mounted on the camera while in the bag. Once I am ready to shoot, I usually carry the camera in my hand - if necessary, all day.</p>

<p>Never, don't even own any graduated ones. I either do as Lex suggested or take shots exposed for sky and foreground and blend them in post. Worked so far for me - see no need for the expenditure and the hassle with the setup.</p>

<p>The lens does have AF and will autofocus just fine with your D7100. IF I was shopping for an inexpensive 50mm lens, I would rather look for the newer 50/1.8G AF-S version - IMO it's better in every regard (but not as small as the D version you are considering).</p>

<p>S is for Speedlight - this shows the firmware version of a SB-900/910 or SB-700 (their firmware is updated through the camera). See, for example, here: https://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16174/~/sb-900-5.02-firmware-update</p> <blockquote> <p>L I guess is auto distortion feature version (??)</p> </blockquote> <p>That would be a correct guess: http://nikonimglib.com/dcdata/#os-windows</p>

<p>The Nikon D3 does not have an electronic shutter (it's ability to sync at faster shutter speeds is dependent on the flash supporting FP sync (or HSS in Canon speak); it shares that capability with a lot of other (higher-end) DSLR bodies). The only Nikon cameras that have electronic shutters are the D1, D1X, D1H, D70/D70S, D50, D40. Believe the Canon 1D has one too. All "ancient" - none of the more modern DSLRs has that feature.</p>

<blockquote> <p>More importantly, knowing that I could hire - or, eventually, buy - big lenses and other accessories matters to me in my choice of system.</p> </blockquote> <p>Certainly is for me too - and was a factor when I purchased into the Nikon system some 35 years ago!</p> <blockquote> <p>I'd not, currently, even consider switching to Sony or Pentax for those reasons.</p> </blockquote> <p>I also don't consider switching - but I am no longer opposed to using something else besides my Nikons (without duplicating and wasting money that way). Once the new Zeiss 16-35/4 for Sony FE mount is available and IF it tests well, then a substantial portion of my shooting might occur on Sony rather than Nikon. It is nice to have a small camera sometimes (at others, it can be a royal pain in the b...). At the moment, both Pentax and Sony would have the lenses I would want - but I'd honestly be a bit concerned about the future of both companies (or in the case of Sony whether they will continue along a path they started). Being with Nikon, so far, I had not to endure a mount change (like Canon), the disappearance of the entire company (Minolta, though Sony stepped into the breach there), or the discontinuation of an entire line without a suitable alternative (Leia R).</p> <blockquote> <p>Sticking the D800 AF module in the D7100 surprised me</p> </blockquote> <p>It actually confused me - since it was an indication that a D400 might not be forthcoming.</p> <blockquote> <p> - but then sticking the D7000 AF module in the D5200 surprised me.</p> </blockquote> <p>That surprised me too. I was even more surprised to find it in the D600/D610!</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm not sure how to sell a D7100 in a D800 body; with the exception of the buffer and maybe slight frame rate enhancements (which the D800 body probably can't offer), it's hard to see what to add.</p> </blockquote> <p>To me it is all about the ergonomics. I didn't purchase a D7000 because I could not hold that camera comfortably with its too narrow grip; reaching the AE-L/AF-L button - reprogrammed to AF-On - was nearly impossible. The D7100 and D610 are slightly better but not at the level of a D200/D300 - I simply want "D7200" innards in a D810 shell as it seems to be the only way to get a camera that has the controls I want where I need them to be. It appears though that the dice are cast against Nikon producing such a camera - so at one point, I will need to adapt to the new - which in some aspects feels like a major step backwards and down.</p> <p>Don't understand that desire for a D4X which certainly would cost north of $6K - but then I am not a pro that needs that kind of ruggedness in a body. Still, it appears to me that I could buy two D810 bodies for that money - I would have backup in case one fails and I am quite certain that these cameras could withstand quite some abuse as well. But I suppose that having a built-in grip for vertical shooting is preferable to having to attach one (which I do less and less frequently because I have to take the L-plate off first.</p>

<blockquote> <p>What is Nikon D400?</p> </blockquote> <p>After reflecting a bit more on this - it is actually quite easy. In the same way that the D300 was/is the DX equivalent of the D700 and the D7000/D7100 can be considered the DX equivalent of the D600/D610, the mythical D400 (or D9300 or whatever) should be the DX equivalent of the D800. The one thing though that doesn't quite fit is the fact that the D7100 already has the D800's AF system but not its body-style; I am also not expecting a 36MP DX sensor (24MP is plenty IMO). Another thing that doesn't fit is that the D7100 doesn't share the memory module of the D610 (or the D800's for that matter). I just realized how much I enjoy shooting with a D300/D700 combo because almost everything is at the same place (not to mention the shared battery grip). Can't have that with any DX camera if it is to be paired with a D800/D800E/D810.</p>